The new 2257: will sponsors give a shit

[pushpills]

OK so the new 2257 is supposed to go in effect soon, the question is, will sponsors give a shit about their affiliates complience? I mean, how many affiliates who have their own full page multi site ads or tgps with tons of thumbnails are really going to have everything conform to the new 2257?

If sponsors wanted full compliance they'd have to kill off at least 90% of their affiliates...at least.


So, will most sponsors just say fuck it, let them send from wherever they want even if their site doesn't comply....we'll just boot them if we get a phone call from some authority and claim total ignorance.


What do YOU think?

[sarettah]

I really don't think program owners will (or should) give a fuck whther their affiliates comply or not. It is up to the affiliate to run their site(s) properly. If an affiliate gets busted by the feds, it is not the program owners problem. It is the affiliates problem.

[spazlabz]

somehow i suspect these new regs........oh excuse me.........clarified regs will be enforced about as much as the old, unclear regs were. I think it is a flaming hoop the DoJ threw up for us to jump through with no audience to applaud our accomplishments (comforming)


spaz

[pushpills]

yea I'd agree with both of those replies.

[Hell Puppy]

It's not getting press, so I think the motive is a perhaps a bit more sinnister.

It basically gives the feds a stick to use to shut pretty much anyone down that they like. They dont have to prove anything, just coming to your town and auditing you should be enough to shut most companies down.

They can soak up your entire bankroll and kill your reputation in your community whether you have your documentation in order or not. But at least having your docs in order will keep you out of jail....hopefully.

[RawAlex]

It is not clear to me if programs, link sites, TGPs, etc should be the enforcement tool for this sort of stuff. I would defy any one out there (including the lawyers) to give me a 100% certain "you should do this but not this".

They can't, so why should the programs suddenly become US federal agents?

It's not logical.

Alex

[pushpills]

lot's of great input, as always.

would be interesting to see, though, the first "extreem young teen" sponsor who gets federal action, if the feds say "yea....but you didn't enforce compliance with this material"


I'm not too worried, but it'll be very interesting to see which major sponsors get hit first, and what the domino effect will be to their and other major sponsors affiliate compliance policies.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by pushpills@Aug 16 2004, 10:59 PM
would be interesting to see, though, the first "extreem young teen" sponsor who gets federal action, if the feds say "yea....but you didn't enforce compliance with this material"

???

There is nothing in the way 2257 is written or has been interpreted that I know of that makes the primary producer responsible for the way a secondary producer or distributor maintains their records for compliance purposes. In fact, as it is written it does not even REQUIRE a primary producer to provide records to a secondary producer. It states

( A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in Sec.
75.1© may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and
maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in
Sec. 75.1©, copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this
section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name
and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the
records.

EDITED IN after the fact:

Realized as I walked back upstairs that I think I misinterpreted somewhat what you were saying.

Yes, there might be construed some sort of liability for the way that a program is advertised, much the same way that right now KP ans Beastie are a no nos on most programs listed, perhaps we may see some programs requiring affiliates to at least have their 2257 statements displayed properly. But I do not see any way in the world that the feds can hold a program liable for an affiliate failing to properly have their records in order.

[pushpills]

sarretah, just because the sponsor isn't "supposed" to be liable for the promotion methods of their affiliates, that doesn't mean that someone wont try to prosecute them for it.



seems like alot of people read this thread, but not everyone has something to say on the topic. I'll stick it back at the top and see if we can get any more comments from any other folks....would nice to hear what a program owner has to say about it (nudge nudge mike)

[*KK*]

The only case where a sponsor could or should care if an affiliate is in compliance is if they gave the affiliate content to use and the liability leads back to them. If not, there is no legal reason that I can see to attempt to do the impossible.

If an affiliate gets nailed, it's not the sponsors problem if they didn't give them the content to use.

Of course smart affiliates could all start using softcore and save themselves the trouble of complying.

[pushpills]

Originally posted by *KK*@Aug 18 2004, 03:04 PM
The only case where a sponsor could or should care if an affiliate is in compliance is if they gave the affiliate content to use and the liability leads back to them.

We'd assume, but anyway, many affiliates and their mother use content from the sponsor, especially some of the most seen sites on the net, tgps.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by *KK*@Aug 18 2004, 04:04 PM
Of course smart affiliates could all start using softcore and save themselves the trouble of complying.

Or straight text links and only sponsor hosted galleries

[dantheman]

Originally posted by sarettah+Aug 18 2004, 04:15 PM-->